PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Income Inequality  (Read 11151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2559
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1140 on: May 14, 2018, 11:43:33 AM »
Depends how far you want to rely on those socialist concepts

Online mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1141 on: May 14, 2018, 11:58:14 AM »
Not saying that market failure does not exist. SOmetimes markets fail, but the great thing is that they reinvent themselves stronger and more robust to account for the market failure. Also, I am not saying that we don't need to have some regulations in the market. However, there are a lot of regulations that are implemented to prevent things from happening that are so incredibly remote, they take up considerable resources for no reason.

The goal of regulation should be to make a safer more stable market, but it should not be there to prevent all market failures. 1) It is unachievable to do that, 2) sometimes, the market failure is not a bad thing and we need to accept some level of this in the marketplace because it helps make the market more efficient in the long term, 3) Competition is the ultimate cleanser of a bad market. WHen you regulate competition out of the market, you make the market failure much worse when it happens, and it breeds corruptions and other unintended consequences.

I know you're not saying all regulations are bad. (And I'm not saying their are not bad regulations) But from the point of view of a voter, when GOP candidates use the term "regulation" like it's a dirty word, it gets tiresome... and it's intellectually dishonest on their part as they really just throw the term around to get applause, without any kind of thought about what kind of regulations they dislike, or why.

In terms of market failure though, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about market crashes, I'm talking about market failure. There is no way a market could ever reinvent itself to accommodate the costs of pollution passed to future generations. The market is by its nature much more focused on short-term gratification. Thinking/planning long-term about this issue is not something that a market has the ability to do.

Real estate is another example. The market is always going to favor greenfield development because it's cheaper, but the market has no ability to take into account the fact that we will one day run out of greenfields. Short term v. long term.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7011
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1142 on: May 14, 2018, 11:59:31 AM »
Depends how far you want to rely on those socialist concepts

Whatever it takes, if the goal is a sustainable society.  That goes for both theories plus other theories yet to develop.  We can't give absolute priority to any one theory, certainly not a theory from the days of muskets and whale oil. 

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 48731
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1143 on: May 16, 2018, 08:39:27 AM »
FACT: Nearly 87% of the companies in the Fortune 500 (433 out of 500) have announced NO plans to share their tax cuts with their employees.
https://t.co/3BEoPiUI5A
"Many Americans are willing to die for their country. But pay taxes for it? No way." -- Me.

Offline Matthew67

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 182
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1144 on: May 16, 2018, 09:06:20 AM »
Depends how far you want to rely on those socialist concepts

Free roads and public schools are socialist concepts. Why is mortgage interest tax deductible? That redistributes wealth from those without mortgages to those with mortgages.

Offline Ram23

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1145 on: May 16, 2018, 09:07:21 AM »
^ Typically, most companies aren't going to get into a political debate by making such an announcement. We'll see wages continue rise this year (maybe even over 3%) and the tax cuts will be one of the clear root causes, but in such hate and vitriol coming out of the media regarding Trump, no one really stands to gain much by giving him attribution. That said, it's pretty nuts that 67 of the country's largest companies have made such a clear announcement despite the negative press onslaught , boycotts, etc. they risk facing for doing so.

Online GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8648
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1146 on: May 16, 2018, 10:26:40 AM »
Depends how far you want to rely on those socialist concepts

Free roads and public schools are socialist concepts. Why is mortgage interest tax deductible? That redistributes wealth from those without mortgages to those with mortgages.

The U.S. has been socialist since the New Deal, at least. No putting the genie back in the bottle.

Online taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7272
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1147 on: May 16, 2018, 10:32:57 AM »
The fact that the US isn't 100% libertarian doesn't make it socialist.

Online DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1148 on: May 16, 2018, 10:43:27 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/387922-keith-ellison-releases-study-showing-ceos-on-average-make-339-times-median

Quote
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on Wednesday released a study that found CEOs in the United States, on average, are paid 339 times more than their workers.

Ellison said the report, which includes data on nearly 14 million workers at 225 American companies, paints a dire picture of pay disparities in the U.S. For example, at 188 out of the 225 companies analyzed, a single CEO's salary could be used to pay more than 100 workers.

"The CEO-worker pay ratio is a dramatic indicator of our country’s extreme economic divide," the report's executive summary reads.

Online Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2559
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1149 on: May 16, 2018, 11:00:06 AM »
^ The amount of hatred on the left from those who are successful and run companies is sickening.

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1150 on: May 16, 2018, 11:01:55 AM »
^ the amount of willful misunderstanding of the point from the right is sickening.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14514
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1151 on: May 16, 2018, 11:07:16 AM »
The U.S. has been socialist since the New Deal, at least. No putting the genie back in the bottle.

Yeah elimination of social security would cause total chaos.  It's not a lot of money per month but in aggregate it's a lot an enables a semi-dignified existence.  If someone makes it to age 100, they collect roughly $500,000. 

The tough thing is that even if you have your house paid off, social security won't pay enough to cover major repairs.  That's why in 2018 you still see homes preserved in 1966 hitting the market. 




Online GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8648
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1152 on: May 16, 2018, 11:07:45 AM »
The internet led to much of today's income inequality. The money is being Hoovered into Seattle and San Fransisco since people hang out on the internet 24/7 rather than spending money in their communities like they used to. That and our crooked 3rd World healthcare system.

Online DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1153 on: May 16, 2018, 11:11:36 AM »
^ The amount of hatred on the left from those who are successful and run companies is sickening.

You, uh, completely missed the point.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14514
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1154 on: May 16, 2018, 11:48:24 AM »
^ The amount of hatred on the left from those who are successful and run companies is sickening.

Successful at earning money.  They aren't necessarily good people, but the money gives them power and a way for them to convince themselves that they are a big deal.  Those kinds of guys like to say that they "make payroll" and everyone out there who hasn't had to make payroll doesn't get it.  I can think of a lot of markers of character more impressive than "making payroll". 

Taking in kids from a deceased sibling or other relative, spending a decade or more taking care of a disabled relative, etc.  That stuff doesn't pay anything but consumes as much or more time than running a business. 




Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9844
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1155 on: May 16, 2018, 06:12:26 PM »
^ The amount of hatred on the left from those who are successful and run companies is sickening.

Pointing out and discussing a disparity isn't hatred. 

Online taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7272
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1156 on: May 16, 2018, 08:41:08 PM »
Most people on the left have no problem with people who work hard earning more than people who are lazy. However, most people on the left don't think that a CEO's job is 300× harder than the average worker's job, and therefore CEOs don't deserve a salary that's 300× higher than the average worker's salary.

Any time people on the left propose anything that seeks to reduce income inequality, people on the right call it "socialism." No one is proposing socialism. No one is proposing that the CEO be paid the same amount as the person doing data entry or the person cleaning the floors. They just don't think the CEO should be making 300× what they do.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14514
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1157 on: May 17, 2018, 12:09:38 AM »
Socialism is, like, state ownership of steel mills, airlines, all railroads, coal mines, all utilities, etc.  We have never, ever had that in the United States.  Except during WWI, when the federal government took over operation (but not ownership) of the railroads from mid-1917 to early 1919 to eliminate price gouging.  By all accounts, the competing railroads functioned better under neutral management than they did before or since. 

Online mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1158 on: May 17, 2018, 09:16:29 AM »
^ The amount of hatred on the left from those who are successful and run companies is sickening.

I actually agree with you that there are some on the 'Sanders wing' of the Democratic Party who seem to believe that "corporate" and "profit" are inherently evil. I got in an argument with a girl back in 2016 who thought that Obamacare was evil because evil insurance companies.

However I don't see that hate in the post you are responding to. Ellison is simply stating facts about worker/CEO pay ratios. The main point is that families now need two parents working to maintain an average quality of life whereas decades ago it was only one parent. Middle class families have lost ground, and this is a problem.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7011
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1159 on: May 17, 2018, 09:44:45 AM »
How does hatred enter into it?  Nobody has proposed anything remotely unpleasant for CEOs to endure.  Marginally less wealth, but still fabulous wealth.  Nobody is asking their kids to starve.  Nobody is proposing to deny them housing or transportation or health care or retirement savings in exchange for their efforts.  But how do they feel about us?  Can we define hatred in a way that CEOs are receiving it but not dishing it out?

Online mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1160 on: May 17, 2018, 09:47:07 AM »
You don't need to actually propose a measurable 'retaliation' against somebody to hate them. It also doesn't matter whether or not the CEOs return the hatred.

It's pretty clear that some on the margins of the left have an irrational distaste for anything and everything 'business.'

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1161 on: May 17, 2018, 09:54:54 AM »
Sure, people on the margins of both sides have reprehensible beliefs but that isn't what was going on in Ellison's comment.

Offline Foraker

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 639
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1162 on: May 17, 2018, 12:13:54 PM »
Most people on the left have no problem with people who work hard earning more than people who are lazy. However, most people on the left don't think that a CEO's job is 300× harder than the average worker's job, and therefore CEOs don't deserve a salary that's 300× higher than the average worker's salary.

Any time people on the left propose anything that seeks to reduce income inequality, people on the right call it "socialism." No one is proposing socialism. No one is proposing that the CEO be paid the same amount as the person doing data entry or the person cleaning the floors. They just don't think the CEO should be making 300× what they do.

And I would add that while most people on the left have no problem with people who work hard and earn lots of money being able to leave a little behind for their kids or their favorite charity, most people on the left are in favor of high estate taxes that reduce the creation of trust babies that have an unfair starting advantage in life based on birth rather than hard work. 

The Right often espouses similar themes of honoring people who have "made it" by working hard rather than having wealth handed to them as a birthright.  Additionally, if funds necessary for operating the government can be recovered from dead people, taxes can be lower for the living -- which the Right also should be in favor of. 

Moving the country forward would be a lot easier if the Right and the Left could see such common themes and find ways to work together.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14514
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1163 on: May 17, 2018, 12:44:22 PM »
Paradoxically, many who espouse "hard work" also want every dime they are poised to inherit and want to pass on as much as possible without penalty.  Because "they're blessed". 

People think that the admirable parts of their "character" are derived through "sacrifice" and "hard work", but then they sometimes set their kids up to inherit the company or the pile of money or whatever, and dismiss any criticism.  Since they "were blessed". 

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1164 on: May 17, 2018, 12:47:45 PM »
^ part of the paradox is also that socialism discourages hard work and innovation but being born filthy rich and being idle is perfectly fine.

Online Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2559
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1165 on: May 17, 2018, 01:33:19 PM »
The thing I see from many of the socialists around is that they view money and property completely different than the established view as laid out under the Constitution. This is why they want a high estate tax, to "level the playing field" and they decry that "the rich need to pay their fair share" whatever that really is, and why they should have a say in what a CEO at a private corporation should earn.

What many libertarian minded people and those who understand the Constitution tend to believe is that money and wealth belongs to the people and individuals who have it, and then they give it to government in the form of taxes to support the common good. However, it is truly their personal property and not necessarily up for the government to freely take at their whim. The notion of private property rights that has long been an established principle in this country fully supports this. Personal earnings is every bit of private property as someone's car of wedding ring or even gun, and is not entitled to be taken by the government without just cause and compensation. This is the key problem with the estate tax. Do really wealthy people need to pass their money on? of course not, but it is their property and their choice to do so, not the government's. Also, it has been proven that the estate tax does not necessarily support a common government good as it generates an infinitesimal amount to the treasury on an annual basis, the sole point of it is a taking of personal property.

What I hear emanating from the Sandernista's out there is that money and currency emanates from the government and is ultimately the property of the government and that government can take that property as they see fit to accomplish a common good or better goal for society. If they do not like how the rich guy donates his money, or don't think he donates enough, then government has a responsibility to take his property and use it for the common good of society.  This perverse view has never been what this country has ever been about, but it seems to be a growing view amongst some members of our society.

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1166 on: May 17, 2018, 01:35:46 PM »
are these guys socialists?

“A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly  absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every  generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from  posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.” — Thomas Jefferson

“There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.” — Adam Smith (not a founding father, but an inspiration to them)

“The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches . . .” — James Madison

“[America] will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.” — George Washington

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. . . . t is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land.” — Thomas Jefferson (in reaction to the evils observed in France)

Online Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2559
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1167 on: May 17, 2018, 01:36:46 PM »
Most people on the left have no problem with people who work hard earning more than people who are lazy. However, most people on the left don't think that a CEO's job is 300× harder than the average worker's job, and therefore CEOs don't deserve a salary that's 300× higher than the average worker's salary.

Any time people on the left propose anything that seeks to reduce income inequality, people on the right call it "socialism." No one is proposing socialism. No one is proposing that the CEO be paid the same amount as the person doing data entry or the person cleaning the floors. They just don't think the CEO should be making 300× what they do.

It is not our place to be concerned with what the CEO of a corporation earns compared to the average worker. If you are, it is called jealousy. Now, are all CEO's paid appropriately? Of course not. Some are vastly overpaid for what they do. However, it is up to the shareholders and the board to hold them accountable and bargain with them as to the appropriate amount of compensation. I do not own stock in GE for example, so it really is not my business what they choose to pay their CEO or whether or not he delivers value to the shareholders.  The fact that people with little or zero stake in a business claim to have a right to dictate to the company how it should compensate its executives is nothing more than jealousy.

Online Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2559
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1168 on: May 17, 2018, 01:39:58 PM »
are these guys socialists?

“A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly  absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every  generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from  posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.” — Thomas Jefferson

“There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.” — Adam Smith (not a founding father, but an inspiration to them)

“The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches . . .” — James Madison

“[America] will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.” — George Washington

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. . . . t is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land.” — Thomas Jefferson (in reaction to the evils observed in France)

The common law which concerns property rights has rules in place to handle the disposition of estates. These quotes were likely referring to these existing mechanisms and not pushing an estate tax to capture wealth for the government. Using a quote such as this to argue that these individuals were for a hefty estate tax to keep rightful property owners from passing along wealth is taking the quote out of context.

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Income Inequality
« Reply #1169 on: May 17, 2018, 01:43:32 PM »
are these guys socialists?

“A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly  absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every  generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from  posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.” — Thomas Jefferson

“There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.” — Adam Smith (not a founding father, but an inspiration to them)

“The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches . . .” — James Madison

“[America] will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.” — George Washington

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. . . . t is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land.” — Thomas Jefferson (in reaction to the evils observed in France)

The common law which concerns property rights has rules in place to handle the disposition of estates. These quotes were likely referring to these existing mechanisms and not pushing an estate tax to capture wealth for the government. Using a quote such as this to argue that these individuals were for a hefty estate tax to keep rightful property owners from passing along wealth is taking the quote out of context.

I think it is on you to prove that the quotes are out of context. They seem to abhor the idea of generational wealth.  No matter how you slice these are not socialist ideas.